The Secretary
Social Development Committee
GPO Box 572 Confidential until approved for publication Adelaide 5001
Mental Health Services and the NDIS
To the members of the committee
In relation to Term of Reference 1, I am aware anecdotally, and through speaking to other parents of adults with a mental illness, that it has been difficult for many of those with solely a diagnosis of mental illness to gain access to services funded by the NDIS.
However, I wish to address Term of Reference 5: ‘The sufficiency of services provided to people with mental illness who are accepted into the NDIS’.
I have a 46-year-old son who has the dual diagnosis of intellectual disability and mental illness (bipolar schizoaffective disorder, with obsessive ruminations and high levels of anxiety).
Because he had received some case management from Disability SA because of his intellectual disability he was ‘automatically’ eligible to become an NDIS participant.
His first plan (commenced September 2017) was manifestly inadequate as it included no funding for therapies to assist the mental health aspect of his dual disability and funded barely sufficient support for daily living.
The second plan (commenced November 2017 after my request for Review) included funds for ‘35 hours [per annum] of therapy and/or training as part of the In-Kind DCSI program and the In-Kind service will continue with the existing service provider as they have been pre-paid to deliver this service’.
I make several points:
- There had been no existing provider of such services.
- Specifying that such services had to be provided by DCSI ASSIST allowed my son neither choice nor control.
a. He was unable to select a therapist who was suited to his particular needs. b. The location of the service (Gilles Plains) was extremely difficult for him to access by public transport.
- During this plan dated November 2017, he received: a. a home visit from a psychologist, and a support coordinator (who was never seen or heard from again), in February
b. an appointment with a psychologist in March c. an appointment with the same psychologist in April, which was cancelled because of the therapist’s illness
d. an appointment in May, at which the therapist advised that she would be leaving the service
e. an appointment in August, offered in July, with another therapist (again unknown) at another location.
- This erratic level of service is not useful to someone living with extreme anxiety, who needs regular and consistent support to develop strategies to manage daily life.
For this reason I approached NDIS and DCSI seeking to have the In-Kind funding released to enable my son to have choice and control in the selection of a therapist. This request was fiercely resisted for several months, until NDIS eventually issued a directive that such funds could be released to the client, where the nominated provider ‘was unable or unwilling to provide the service’. He now has a therapist, who is a much better match for his needs, and whom he can see regularly and more frequently than was the case with DCSI ASSIST therapists.
Conclusion: There may be many other families affected by the initial decision to appoint DCSI ASSIST as a catch-all service provider of a range of therapies.
It is clear from our experience that DCSI ASSIST is under-resourced and thus unable to meet the needs of NDIS participants who require mental health therapies. It is possible that DCSI ASSIST is similarly under-resourced in relation to other services that participants are being required to receive from this agency.
I recommend:
- that the resources (financial and personnel) available to DCSI ASSIST to assist NDIS participants be investigated to see whether they are:
a. adequate, and b. appropriate for participants’ needs. 2. that the Government of South Australia work with the NDIS to ensure that funds allocated as In-Kind can be released to enable participants choice and control over their selection of providers when participants and/or their families deem this a better fit.